If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm not telling up front; I'll just say that the figures surprised me, though who's costing us the most didn't, really.

edit: this doesn't include the cost of Secret Service coverage; that's a figure they don't give out so freely -- I guess the amount might tip someone off as to how much security each one has.

Last edited by Kulindahr; June 24th, 2014 at 09:22 PM.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Well at least you have a combined Head of State / Head of Government (i.e. the President), in the United Kingdom we have to financially support all of our former Prime Ministers, and we have an extensive monarchy to keep as well. Furthermore, in the event that Queen Elizabeth II were to abdicate for whatever reason, the taxpayer would still be responsible for keeping her, as a former monarch of the United Kingdom.

And whilst I support the monarchy, I do think that the extent of it, and the financial burden that it places on taxpayers is too great, perhaps they could scale it down to include the reigning monarch, his/her consort and his/her immediate offspring, and the remaining 'minor' royals can fend for themselves. I consider that to be a more than reasonable comprise, although staunch royalists would perhaps disagree.

Re: The cost of former presidents

i would say the whole idea of a monarchy is way outdated and couldnt imagine the brits tolerating it, but there are far worse players in control of the American congress.

Some people think democracy is outdated.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

The Royal family generates close to £500 million (about US$849 million) every year for British tourism. (The Telegraph; 2011)

I did clearly state in my post that I support the monarchy, and there is no denying that it is a very important asset for British tourism. But taxpayers are still liable for contributing towards the upkeep of the Royal Family, in addition to our former living Prime Ministers, so in effect, it is a double burden. After all, that was what the OP's post was about.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by rareboy

Too many people forget this.

Britain's monarchy is a money machine.

How much of a monarchy would it take to balance the US budget?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

I found Hillary Clinton's comment that they were dead broke after leaving the White House amusing. I suspect that she was technically correct, because they probably had a huge debt for legal fees. However, considering what we now know what was their future earning potential, that's the state of being "dead broke" I could live with.

Re: The cost of former presidents

If the government estimates a cost that is acceptable to live for citizens, then we should pay them that amount. Still give them security, but just above a poverty level is considered not in poverty. Why we need to pay for staff and offices I have not the faintest.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by JayHawk

If the government estimates a cost that is acceptable to live for citizens, then we should pay them that amount. Still give them security, but just above a poverty level is considered not in poverty. Why we need to pay for staff and offices I have not the faintest.

The median national income would be a good starting point.

Or maybe the average.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Special K

Well at least you have a combined Head of State / Head of Government (i.e. the President), in the United Kingdom we have to financially support all of our former Prime Ministers, and we have an extensive monarchy to keep as well. Furthermore, in the event that Queen Elizabeth II were to abdicate for whatever reason, the taxpayer would still be responsible for keeping her, as a former monarch of the United Kingdom.

And whilst I support the monarchy, I do think that the extent of it, and the financial burden that it places on taxpayers is too great, perhaps they could scale it down to include the reigning monarch, his/her consort and his/her immediate offspring, and the remaining 'minor' royals can fend for themselves. I consider that to be a more than reasonable comprise, although staunch royalists would perhaps disagree.

You'd still have all of those costs even if the Royal Family was abolished. Buckingham Palace will not be demolished so a Tesco can be put there instead. Even if the Commonwealth was dissolved and we all had presidents, all of the costs would continue, in the UK, in Canada, in Australia, in NZ, in Jamaica.

The Queen basically lives in one corner of a national museum, which would cost the same in upkeep whether she runs the place or whether Cherie Blair came back as President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

And one queen with 16 governors general is definitely cheaper than 16 presidents.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by rareboy

Too many people forget this.

Britain's monarchy is a money machine.

Yeah, but it would still be a money machine without them - it's the nice buildings and history that get people going, not some little old lady! Ask the French if no one visits their historical sights now!

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by bankside

The Queen basically lives in one corner of a national museum, which would cost the same in upkeep whether she runs the place or whether Cherie Blair came back as President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Except we pay for silly things like when she wants her bedroom re-done etc. Also they get government help to heat all their palaces and houses all year round whether they go there or not, and whether we are allowed their or not. Throw in the fact they don't pay any tax and it's a mess. Give us the buildings, let us in, and charge us a cost - no need for the blue blood lot, they can go do work like the rest of us (and not pretend army jobs!).

Re: The cost of former presidents

^To be fair, Prince Andrew saw active duty in the Falklands, Prince Harry has seen active duty in Afghanistan, Prince William is now training as a search and rescue helicopter pilot, a very dangerous job.
The Queen does now pay tax, after the shit hit the fan a few years ago. HM is well known for being frugal, on the rare occasion when you see her pictured in her private quarters, they are quite shabby compared to the public areas of the palace.

Much of her touted wealth is actually held in trust for the nation, she cannot sell it off.

Also many of the Royal palaces are indeed open to the public, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Re: The cost of former presidents

i would say the whole idea of a monarchy is way outdated and couldnt imagine the brits tolerating it, but there are far worse players in control of the American congress.

"Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

The British government is the single most successful in human history. It enabled the people of a tiny piece land to lead the world into democracy, free enterprise, and the industrial revolution. Most of the countries of the world have governments patterned in some respects on the British government. It has been a leader in science, medicine and technology and few if any countries can equal its list of Nobel prize winners. Along the way, it established the largest Empire and taught self government to innumerable countries. If it ended the monarchy, it would need and elected replacement in order to preserve its Parliamentary system, i. e. a chief of state separate from the prime minister.
Its constitution is but little changed since 1688, while others have experienced years of turmoil and revolution. It has been able to export that democratic stability to other countries: US, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Re: The cost of former presidents

I think it's worth noting that most of the royal family couldn't possibly hold a job. All the inbreeding has led to some...cough...serious deficiencies. Furthermore none of them have ever felt the necessity of work, it would be a completely foreign concept.

Personally I see nothing wrong with their current arrangement.

Even though she has no power, the British government has been a model of success. That and the royal family is a huge money maker for Britain. All the publicity, homes, collections, sites generate serious revenue.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Johnny, during the Falklands, Prince Andrews helicopter was one of the first on the scene after the attacks on The Sheffield airlifting serious casualties to safety.
I have mixed emotions about such a large brood and the expense this causes, but i have no doubt about the sense of duty many of the "closer" Royals do hold.

mightbe, do not be mistaken The Queen does indeed hold powers, though seldom used, one of these is the power to dissolution The House of Commons, to grant a Royal Pardon to name a few.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger

Except we pay for silly things like when she wants her bedroom re-done etc. Also they get government help to heat all their palaces and houses all year round whether they go there or not, and whether we are allowed their or not. Throw in the fact they don't pay any tax and it's a mess. Give us the buildings, let us in, and charge us a cost - no need for the blue blood lot, they can go do work like the rest of us (and not pretend army jobs!).

Since when have those jobs been "pretend"?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Benvolio

"Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

The British government is the single most successful in human history. It enabled the people of a tiny piece land to lead the world into democracy, free enterprise, and the industrial revolution. Most of the countries of the world have governments patterned in some respects on the British government. It has been a leader in science, medicine and technology and few if any countries can equal its list of Nobel prize winners. Along the way, it established the largest Empire and taught self government to innumerable countries. If it ended the monarchy, it would need and elected replacement in order to preserve its Parliamentary system, i. e. a chief of state separate from the prime minister.
Its constitution is but little changed since 1688, while others have experienced years of turmoil and revolution. It has been able to export that democratic stability to other countries: US, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand etc.

It "export[ed] ... democratic stability" to the U.S. by taking steps to destroy it, though.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

I think it's worth noting that most of the royal family couldn't possibly hold a job.

Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd say you have to be seriously unaware of their lives and activities to make such a claim.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd say you have to be seriously unaware of their lives and activities to make such a claim.

Sorry, that was worded sloppily. I'm not talking about the more distant royals--many of whom have furthered their educations, married out of the family, and gotten what most people would consider normal jobs (doctors, teachers, researchers and architects among them)--they have remarkably normal lives for their connections. But among the most central figures, I don't think they've been taught or acquired the necessary skills to endure life beyond royalty. Yes, they can keep to a hectic schedule and give numerous speeches and be patrons to societies and attend high-profile events and take part in official engagements. It's a job, and a what I imagine can be a very strenuous one, but it's not what most people would consider normal.

Those most-central members simply weren't prepared for life outside the auspices of royal life. Among the younger crowd (two generations below the Queen) that doesn't apply quite so strongly. William and Harry especially were introduced to everyday life, and bless Diana for it. She might not've been that important in the grand scheme of things but hopefully she's brought a fresh edge to the Royal Family. Remember, it wasn't until Elizabeth II's kids that they went off to school, and even then there was a significant bubble around them. Contrast that with Harry. The charisma of the whole family is tied up in him, and I think this is largely because of his background. He wasn't really prepared to accede to the throne and he had greater freedom to interact with the public than earlier generations.

Consider this: Charles (as an example), who has a degree of some kind from Cambridge (2:2, and his requirements may or may not have been "loosened", but we can assume average intelligence or greater), taking a "normal" job, nothing inconspicuous, that he has applied for and has been given the job on merit, a salary in the middle 50% of salaries, a fairly standard work week, and must live on that salary in an home that he's purchased and pay taxes like any regular citizen. Do you think he could do it? I confess, I doubt it.

First, those closest to the monarch don't need much experience with practical matters. Budgeting, saving, investing, mortgaging, planning, shopping..etc.--life skills--aren't a part of his life. Please remember, he has an exceptional (in every sense of the word) life. Skills for being an effective royal are quite different than the skills required of most private citizens. His life is markedly different from what is usually considered "normal". It's not his fault. He just happens to be the heir apparent. His duties constitute a job, but it's not a job awarded on qualification (though the number of engagements is somewhat dependent on ability). His duties are contingent on just one factor; he's the eldest son of the Queen. He's never going to be placed in the same situations as normal people, so he didn't need any preparation for it. It won't be his life so why bother?

In truth, he probably didn't "need" to further his education; it has not significantly impacted his life beyond university. However, he did go. I can't say why he felt it was important, that's very personal, but he did. My guess is that it falls somewhere between "I could" and "I wanted to".

Most people don't have that luxury--most people see it as a practical or semi-practical decision. His personal life might have been influenced, but his professional life certainly wasn't. His current job consists of being a PR agent to the Queen. He may chair societies and organizations, promote the Queen's image, appear as a representative to the Queen, create public interest in matters he deems important, attend/host illustrious gatherings of dignitaries to promote the interests of Britain, and fill the tabloids because the monarchy is of great public interest. That's not exactly a "normal" job. His livelihood isn't dependent on it; there's not the same necessity with it.

Yes, he may perform many functions, some of them important, others purely ceremonial, but he does not lead a "normal" life, and I think that any attempt at one will end in failure. He's in his mid-60s. Change is hard enough when you're young. He's always lived in a very special world where he doesn't have to experience most societal aches.

As the family members become more distant and younger I think this dissipates (especially once outside of the main cluster). The extended family has generally integrated with society, and many have gone on to higher education to pursue careers. '

With the British Royal Family (and also the Scandinavian royal families) I also think it's somewhat telling that very few go on to university or careers outside the military (which usually don't last longer than 10 years). There's been significant inbreeding and its effects cannot help but be noticed. Even though some marrying-out has been happening since the early 20th century, that kind of damage takes a long time to correct. Very slowly the family has been turning out smarter and more driven people.

Contrastingly, look at the Japanese Royal Family. Filled to the brim with very motivated and intelligent people.

Re: The cost of former presidents

My impression is that Alexandra the wife of Edward VII, brought into the line three generations of mediocre intelligence: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. Prince Phillip, however, has raised the level of intelligence for recent generations. I see no reason to believe Charles could not handle a normal job. I admit all this is only an impression which would be hard to prove.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Benvolio

My impression is that Alexandra the wife of Edward VII, brought into the line three generations of mediocre intelligence: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. Prince Phillip, however, has raised the level of intelligence for recent generations. I see no reason to believe Charles could not handle a normal job. I admit all this is only an impression which would be hard to prove.

Some of them are not stupid at all and I am sure Charles could do a normal enough job - saying that with all the tutoring he got, he got terrible A level results and kept someone with much better results out of Cambridge. There was a lot of resentment within Cambridge that they had to take him on in fact - they would have rather someone with 4 A's and good entry exam results to a prince with two A-levels (at B and C), results that would never ever get you close to a place.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger

I did not mean jobs in the army, more the jobs they give royals in the army.

From the record, they got the same sorts of jobs anyone else did. Certainly there's evidence that their units were more likely to be assigned safer duties, but there's nothing indicating they got away with any slacking of their duties. Prince Harry saw combat, and had to carry out his duties like anyone else.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

From the record, they got the same sorts of jobs anyone else did. Certainly there's evidence that their units were more likely to be assigned safer duties, but there's nothing indicating they got away with any slacking of their duties. Prince Harry saw combat, and had to carry out his duties like anyone else.

Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...

Re: The cost of former presidents

Remember that the members of the royal family are limited it what they can do commercially. They would be universally criticized if they became real estate salesmen, or even business executives, lawyers, or product spokesmen. Historically they can and are expected to serve in the military. So long as the nation decides to continue the monarchy with this family, they are entitled to some preferences to compensate for the limitations on their commercial activities. They cannot be told that they must serve or that they can only be in the military and then be told that they must compete to be in the military as other people.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger

Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...

I'd like to see royals start at the bottom as well. But there are lots of others who start as officers.

Come to think of it, maybe that should stop, too.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Remember that the members of the royal family are limited it what they can do commercially. They would be universally criticized if they became real estate salesmen, or even business executives, lawyers, or product spokesmen. Historically they can and are expected to serve in the military. So long as the nation decides to continue the monarchy with this family, they are entitled to some preferences to compensate for the limitations on their commercial activities. They cannot be told that they must serve or that they can only be in the military and then be told that they must compete to be in the military as other people.

Well Prince Andrew's last "job" was just travelling around the world acting as a sales men for British products to dubious people and regimes.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

I'd like to see royals start at the bottom as well. But there are lots of others who start as officers.

Come to think of it, maybe that should stop, too.

They should probably all do a mandatory year at the bottom to get some amount of idea - I don't dislike people of high intelligence being promoted quickly, but if they do so without working at the bottom first it makes for a massive disconnection between the officers and grunts.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger

Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...

Yet he served with distinguishing ability as a forward artillery plotter, before going on to train as an attack helicopter pilot, not bad for someone with "piss poor" educational results.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Yet he served with distinguishing ability as a forward artillery plotter, before going on to train as an attack helicopter pilot, not bad for someone with "piss poor" educational results.

Later successes that can be attributed to his time at Sandhurst do not negate the fact that he was not admitted under the normal circumstances. He was admitted because of his name, not because of standard criteria.

That he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Did i cry foul when he was admitted to Sandhurst, i quite rightly pointed out, as have you his skill not only as an officer, but his achievements when qualifying as an attack Apache combat pilot, as well as his decorations for participating in active duty.

That you post, "he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more" totally negates the hours of training it has taking him
to achieve his wings, you do not get them because of the surname or family you are born into, no matter who they may be.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by mightbe

Later successes that can be attributed to his time at Sandhurst do not negate the fact that he was not admitted under the normal circumstances. He was admitted because of his name, not because of standard criteria.

That he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more.

No matter what he does, people will say it was because of his connections and it will be in large part true. If he became a used car sale man, people would flock to buy from him. It is for that reason that he is expected not to engage in commercial activities. If he renounced his title it would still be true that his family connections would open opportunities not available to others. It is unfair to tell the boys, the only thing you can do is the military and you must start at the bottom and compete on merit. They would wisely choose to be indolent.
The nation has made the decision to continue the monarchy, and thus to afford the family a privileged position. You may disagree, but it is the nation's choice.
As for the boys, they, like the rest of us, were born into a world they did not make, did not ask for and which they have little ability to change.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by medic1

That you post, "he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more" totally negates the hours of training it has taking him
to achieve his wings, you do not get them because of the surname or family you are born into, no matter who they may be.

You may have confused talent with skill. I said skill. Skill is something that is developed. Piloting is a skill; while one can be "a talented pilot", that's not the saying the same thing as "the pilot needed no training".

I'm pointing out that whatever he's done with the military has no connection with his admission. "Nothing more" refers to his "exceptional" admission. They're separate statements.

Re: The cost of former presidents

Maybe we should make all former presidents live together. It would make security cheaper, right?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: The cost of former presidents

Originally Posted by Vitamin

Kulindahr's idea is better because this America, and it would make for a better reality TV show. Kuli wins, and cm gets voted off the island.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "